Talk:List of twelve-step groups

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Lists This page is part of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of twelve-step groups article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[edit] Alternative to the traditional 12 steps

I want to suggest an alternative to the traditional wording and perspective of the 12 steps. Instead of being oriented to an external higher power, it is self-directed. It is called "The Proactive Twelve Steps" and can be found at http://www.proactivechange.com/12steps I am not entering this info as an edit because I have a conflict of interest. Wikizeno 13:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


Thank you very much for adding Gamanon and the website!Hugnkiss22 22:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slaves Anonymous

Having three meetings (not groups -- meetings) does not make "Slaves Anonymous" an established organization. [1] Sorry. -- Craigtalbert 15:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PornAddicts Anonymous

As is the case with Slaves Anonymous, if it doesn't have established meetings or can't show evidence that it does, it doesn't belong on this list. -- Scarpy (talk) 02:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a non-notable group and does not belong on this list by any measure of notability: [2] [3]. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I will make note of that on our site. Wiki does not think we are real or notable being new. I am sure that will get lots of positive relations for Wiki.

Break the rules. I am not including information that is proprietary, hurtful, or anything where I gain to profit.

This is for recovery.

Google just had the sitemap submitted to it and will take sometime to have it show up.

Please, use it against our small fellowship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PAAnon1 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There are times when breaking the rules is reasonable, but this is not one of them. Wikipedia serves people better storing information of encyclopedic value than it does as a form of advertising for groups. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

"Dictionary.com

ad·ver·tis·ing Audio Help /ˈædvərˌtaɪzɪŋ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ad-ver-tahy-zing] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. the act or practice of calling public attention to one's product, service, need, etc., esp. by paid announcements in newspapers and magazines, over radio or television, on billboards, etc.: to get more customers by advertising. 2. paid announcements; advertisements. 3. the profession of planning, designing, and writing advertisements."

Is this a paid announcement? No. So therefore it is NOT advertising.

Since we are a 12-step program following the 12 traditions from AA, there is now financial gain and therefore, no advertising for anything on the site exists.

So again, this is not advertising.

"The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. """"If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should perhaps be ignored."""" (See also Wikipedia:The rules are principles.)

The common principles would be to share information in the LIST.

The common principle that you seem to neglect, whether or not you are yourself in a 12-step fellowship for recovery, is that recovery is done through sharing, one person to another, usually through 12-step work. Since the Internet has become a primary source of information, as evidenced by the Wiki project, it would be a disservice to folks looking for recovery in that area.

I have not added anything other than a genuine recovery site for an addiction that is new in the world.

You have taken it upon yourself to determine someone else's recovery potential by outright stating that it does not belong in a place where people look up recovery information.

If there is one person who gets this and then four and then 12, then Wiki has done a great service if the addition of the group is allowed.

By editing and sticking to hardline rules in a LIST of programs, and only a list, not even a WRITE-UP or REVIEW of these programs, you are eliminating the possibility that the largest online encyclopedia in the internet has determined that their disease is NOT ENOUGH for Wiki (almost making you and Wiki their higher power) and therefore violating the common purpose of sharing this information with someone who still suffers.

Perhaps someone more grounded in the 12 traditions of recovery and actively working a recovery would be better suited for handling the editing of this page.

Had you been editing this during the late 30's, say around April 1935, and the Internet was the primary source of much information, you would NOT be editing a twelve-step list TODAY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by PAAnon1 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC) PAAnon1 (talk) 07:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

As a member of the group you are advocating for, you should pay careful attention to wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest. I realize you are not likely to receive financial benefits as a result of advertising on this page, but as WP:NOTADVERTISING points out, wikipedia is not the place for self-promotion, "propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise."
I strongly agree that it is more important to follow the "spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law." That is one of the reasons why I have not been very strict about "enforcing" wikipedia's notability guidelines for all groups listed here. Strictly speaking, all groups should have multiple independent reliable third-party sources demonstrating their notability. I've been reasonably happy with groups that obviously are well-established and have several active meetings. It's becoming clearer this was probably a mistake, in the case, as the extra room for interpretation causes more problems than it solves. The list will probably have to be significantly trimmed again.
Since you've all ready put in a request for a 3O, lets wait to see what the other editors opinion is. -- Scarpy (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

I'm responding to a request posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion. Here are my opinions:

  • An editor with a conflict of interest should not be editing this article; at best that editor can propose an addition on the talk page.
  • It is well known that links on Wikipedia attract traffic to a site. In that sense, any link posted on an article is potentially promotional. A link put there by someone associated with the site is therefore definitely promotional, and should be deleted immediately.
  • The opinions of an editor with a conflict of interest should have zero weight on whether his/her organization deserves a mention in the article, because of the conflict of interest.
  • Overall, this article has no business providing external links to any of the organizations listed. If the entities aren't notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article, they shouldn't be listed here at all. The individual articles should each have an external link to the subject organization. I'm tempted to propose this article for deletion due to lack of notability of much of the content.

That last point probably isn't what either of you wanted to see, but there you have it. The link to PAA should go, as well as the others. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I removed the nns. -- Scarpy (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Groups removed that might be notable enough for articles.

Since meeting times and locations are often published in newspapers for twelve-step groups, news archive searches can inflate the importance of their results. The groups struck out on the list either have no Google Scholar results or don't appear to have enough for an article (Google Scholar results can also often be misleading as authors will sometimes rattle off a long list of twelve-step groups without discussing them, but it's not nearly as bad as a news archive search). If editors find or know of articles in "non-scholarly," but still reliable sources (or in scholarly sources not indexed by Google Scholar), unstrike organization name and provide citations. This way we can work on making articles for notable groups. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

  • AAA - All Addictions Anonymous [4] Nothing
  • AAA - All Addicts Anonymous [5] Nothing
  • ABA - Anorexics and Bulimics Anonymous [6] one result, just lists the organization, doesn't discuss it.
  • A.R.T.S. Anonymous [7] from snippets, none of the results look like they're about the group.
  • CDA - Chemically Dependent Anonymous [8] appears it's mentioned in several books, but a little hard to tell how much it's discussed in each from the context.
  • CEA - Compulsive Eaters Anonymous [9] snippets don't indicate article is discussed in detail.
  • CHAPTER 9 - Couples in Recovery [10] this one may just be hard to search for.
  • Dep-Anon - Depressed Anonymous [11] few search results don't appear to discuss group in detail.
  • DDA - Dual Diagnosis Anonymous [12] few search results don't appear to discuss group in detail.
  • DRA - Dual Recovery Anonymous [13] 99+ results, could easily make an article out of this one.
  • EAA - Eating Addictions Anonymous [14] nothing
  • EDA - Eating Disorders Anonymous [15] few search results, don't appear to discuss article in detail
  • FA - Families Anonymous [16] 236 results, could easily make an article out of this one.
  • FA - Food Addicts in Recovery Anonymous [17] 1 result
  • FAA - Food Addicts Anonymous [18] 19 sources, is possible but not likely
  • GSA - GreySheeters Anonymous [19] nothing
  • HA - Heroin Anonymous [20] two results
  • IPA - International Pharmacists Anonymous [21] 14 results, some appear to discuss this group specifically.
  • MA - Methadone Anonymous [22] 49 results could easily write an article on this one
  • OCA - Obsessive Compulsive Anonymous [23] 18 results, some appear to discuss this group specifically.
  • OA - Offenders Anonymous [24] 13 results, hard to say but most don't appear to be about this group.
  • OLGA - On-Line Gamers Anonymous [25] [26] few search results between the two spellings, but appears to be enough information to make an article.
  • RA - Recoveries Anonymous; the Solution Focused Twelve Step Fellowship [27] few results, do not appear to discuss group in detail. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • RCA - Recovering Couples Anonymous [28] 35 results, could easily write an article on this one.
  • S-Anon/S-Ateen - For family and friends of sexaholics [29] 36 results, could easily write an article on this one.
  • PAA - PornAddicts Anonymous [30] Still nothing.
  • SA - Spenders Anonymous [31] 13 results, some seem to discuss it specifically.
  • Sex Industry Survivors [32] few links, don't seem to discuss it specifically
  • SRA - Sexual Recovery Anonymous [33] 14 results, some seem to discuss it specifically. Probably enough for an article.
  • SIA - Survivors of Incest Anonymous [34] 51 results, definitely enough for an article
  • SMA - Self-Mutilators Anonymous [35] few results, don't seem to discuss it specifically
  • SPA - Social Phobics Anonymous [Social Phobics Anonymous] 1 result
  • SWA - Sex Workers Anonymous [36] 4 results, but they see, to be on topic.
  • CIR - Christians in Recovery [37] nine results, but they seem to be on topic.
  • PA - Parents Anonymous [38] 1000+ results, I don't know why this doesn't have an article all ready.
  • STA - Self-Therapy Anonymous [39] Nothing